Having lived in several large cities in Germany I noticed almost all of them have a tram service. So basically a subway running above ground.

I have always wondered if that is actually an efficient way to organize public transport or if it is politically motivated.

Building tram tracks on the roads requires expensive work applied to otherwise perfectly good streets. Also electrification of the tracks is very expensive.
Couldn't busses do the job just as well as trams? They could use regular roads which seems a lot cheaper. They could also drive around a blocked road if necessary.

I'm really not trying to bash trams just trying to understand why they are used! Thanks!

Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):
Building tram tracks on the roads requires expensive work applied to otherwise perfectly good streets. Also electrification of the tracks is very expensive.

Try digging a tunnel...

Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):Couldn't busses do the job just as well as trams? They could use regular roads which seems a lot cheaper. They could also drive around a blocked road if necessary.

It is all about Capacity. A tram (in this case the Combino trams which run in Amsterdam) can take 180 passengers, a normal citybus takes around 67 (the most used bus in Amsterdam). Another advantage of the tram is that runs on electricity and does not contaminate the air in the city.

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther

Buses use more fuel and are less efficient. They are noisier and smellier than an electrified car. They are also more likely to be stuck in traffic. Besides, trams are perceived as more comfortable by passengers.

Trams are better understood as competing with subways rather than buses. Trams are slower, but a lot cheaper to build. For that reason, there were especially popular in the Communist block.

Berlin is a good example; while the city was divided, East Berlin mainly developed its tram system while West Berlin abolished the tram altogether and built many new subway and bus lines.

Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.

Quoting Flexo (Reply 5):True, trams are larger, but wouldn't it be possible to build larger busses if you agreed to the same limitations as trams (only go on certain routes where the streets are wide enough)

There is a reason the Aussies run their road-trains in the outback and not in the cities..... too dangerous.

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther

Trams have some advantages over buses. Here in San Francisco, we have an extensive tram system and an extensive system of caternary-wire electric buses.

Trams are light rail. Light rail is very useful because it combines the speed and safety of heavy rail with a degree of integration into city infrastructure that you can't get with heavy rail. Trams can be boarded from the street or from platforms.

Our trams sometimes run on the street at grade with the traffic and sometimes go on their own rights-of-way.

In San Francisco, a lot of the buses also use the overhead caternary wires, so the trams and buses can share those.

Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):
Couldn't busses do the job just as well as trams? They could use regular roads which seems a lot cheaper. They could also drive around a blocked road if necessary.

Well, to some degree they can do the job just as well, especially if they're electric-overhead buses like ours in SF. In some cities, they are starting to use a system called Bus Rapid Transit, which is where special roads are built for the buses to drive on, but no other traffic is allowed on those buses. If you think about it, the reason why buses are so slow is because of traffic. In Manhattan, the average speed of a city bus is 6 MPH. Yes, SIX miles per hour. In most cities, the average speed for a bus is 13-15 MPH. So if you could build special rights-of-way just for the buses, you would eliminate that disadvantage at much lower cost than building rail.

However, as JRadier pointed out, you can only make a bus so long before it becomes impossible to drive. You can add as many cars to a tram as you like.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
I'd love to know of any transit systems that run at a profit

-
The idea of a public transport system is NOT to make profits, the only requirement is to cover costs. It is just as with education and public health and electricity and waste-disposal. Public duties which are to be paid.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):In Manhattan, the average speed of a city bus is 6 MPH. Yes, SIX miles per hour. In most cities, the average speed for a bus is 13-15 MPH. So if you could build special rights-of-way just for the buses, you would eliminate that disadvantage at much lower cost than building rail.

My point exactly, Manhattan's mass transit speed wouldn't grow if you switched the busses for trams because they'd be stuck in the same traffic. Sure, you could put more people in the trams but would that justify the cost of constructing rails and electrification for miles and miles?

Use of tax monnies on busses/subways is a collosal waste for the tax payer. Basically a terrible ROI for the cost involved.

If private companies want to run busses, shared ride vans, or taxis etc.. that is great, but not the government jobs. And for those other examples like electricy, trash disposal, health insurance I happily pay for those on a monthly basis via fees and are provided by private companies not the government either.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
I'd love to know of any transit systems that run at a profit. Seems subways/trams/busses are nothing more then government sinking huge sums of tax payer money down a sewer.

The point is not making money, it is providing transport to the masses. Imagine not having public transport and everyone taking a car (although a lot of people won't be able to afford it). A tipical rushhour bus carries 30+ people in the space of 2-3 cars. If those people would drive themselves that would mean at least 15 cars. See the traffic gridlocks appearing? Ever wondered how much that costs?

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther

Of course, there are also people who will lobby for an inefficient system, just to avoid having to build or operate a tram. We see it in Hamburg all the time.

In Hamburg, which has shut down the tram in 1977, we desperately need it back again, as we're facing constant overfilling of buses, plus expanding our U- and S-Bahn-System is simply too expensive. One of the examples of failed U-Bahn-Expansion is the old U4, which should have connected the Airport, and then through Sengelmannstraße, go on a north-south route to Central Station, Jungfernstieg and Altona, and from there to Lurup. Part of that infrastructure (specifically the empty platforms at Jungfernstieg), will now be used for the new U4, which will share lines with the U2 (once the U3 has been restored as the ring line) between Billstedt and Jungfernstieg, and from Jungfernstieg take a 270 turn to head down to the HafenCity.

Take a look at the Metrobus line 5 in Hamburg. It's one of the busiest public bus routes in all of Europe, and no matter how many double-articulated buses are offered, it still doesn't cover all capacity needs. A tram would help ease those capacity shortcomings, even if it means using a tram in triple-traction, plus it will be a much cleaner alternative. Sure, you could build an U-Bahn there, and there were plans for a possible line, that would go from Stephansplatz (connecting with the U1 and Dammtor station) to Niendorf-Markt (connecting with the U2), but it's too expensive to build at this stage, even though the passenger figures would justify such a move. In any case, the tram would help de-congest the roads, by employing buses only as re-inforcement for it and restricting buses only to places the tram can't reach and where a tram can't be justified.

The Greens in Hamburg (I'm by no means a supporter of those treehuggers, but I do agree with them on this subject) have been pressing for the re-introduction of the tram, however it gets either lost in all their internal disputes, or it's major coalition partner does little if anything to stick to its commitment to the tram. Plus there is the anti-tram lobby, which will do anything to stop its construction. Construction of the "new" tram in Hamburg should start in 2012 for a first line that will connect Bramfeld with the U1 station Lattenkamp, however chances are slim that it's going to happen.

One of the biggest opponents of the tram in Hamburg has always been the SPD, they are also suspected to have been historically influenced by an anti-tram lobby led by Daimler-Benz, while OTOH the CDU has been indifferent on the matter. Even the head of the Hochbahn (the operator of the U-Bahn and previous operator of the tram), Mr Günter Elste (a member of the SPD), opposes a single system tram and would rather prefer that the existing U-Bahn be expanded in the form of a lightrail system named U-Stadtbahn (aka Elste-Bahn), a mixed metro and tram, which would directly connect to the U-Bahn system. The Elste-Bahn is no solution for us, because Hamburg's U-Bahn has been established as a single metro system, and the low-floor tram would prove to be more effective if it was run as a single system tram as well.

Personally, if Hamburg should get a tram, I'm all for it. We simply can't afford interim solutions that will become permanent no matter what.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):A tram would help ease those capacity shortcomings, even if it means using a tram in triple-traction, plus it will be a much cleaner alternative

So from what I gathered sort of between the lines of your post, you would think of a tram as a system that offers greater capacity than busses and should be built where the speed and cost of a subway would still be unjustified but busses can't cope?

How about simply offering more busses in quick succession to keep up with demand? I'm not sure what costs more, the extra pay for the additional bus drivers or the cost of constructing tracks but my gut says tracks are more expensive even in the long run.

Quoting Flexo (Reply 11):My point exactly, Manhattan's mass transit speed wouldn't grow if you switched the busses for trams because they'd be stuck in the same traffic. Sure, you could put more people in the trams but would that justify the cost of constructing rails and electrification for miles and miles?

It all depends on the infrastructure that is put in place. If you set up a tram system where traffic and tram didn't meet the trams would run quite fast. Same as if dedicated roads were set up for buses. In a city such as Manhattan this wouldn't be practical though. Unless appropriate infrastructure is in place any public transport system is useless whether it be heavy rail, light rail or buses.

I don't think it is as simple as fares not covering the cost of implementing and running a public transport system. What also has to be taken into account is the worth of moving a group of people from point a to point b. For instance getting the masses from their suburban homes to the CBD of a city. The more people that can easily get to work the more business that can be done generating more taxes for the government.

Quoting Flexo (Reply 11):
My point exactly, Manhattan's mass transit speed wouldn't grow if you switched the busses for trams because they'd be stuck in the same traffic. Sure, you could put more people in the trams but would that justify the cost of constructing rails and electrification for miles and miles?

Manhattan's solution was to build a North-South subway line down 2nd avenue with poor connectivity to the rest of the system. Then they have essentially decided that the NYC transit system is "complete" and requires no further construction.

Of course, there is still no cross-town service above Central Park (or through it), but that's OK. You can do that on a bus. In about one hour. I can actually walk across Central Park faster than a bus will take me. Pathetic, really.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):The idea of a public transport system is NOT to make profits, the only requirement is to cover costs

Show me some systems that cover their cost then?

ZVV, VBZ, SBB/CFF/FFS and many others here in Switzerland HAVE to cover their costs, and generally DO so. And I think many of the railways-companies in Europe also HAVE to cover their costs and like SBB/CFF/FFS even are modestly profitable. And much the same applies to companies in the Arab World, in Africa and Asia, which do NOT get money from the state but rather have to give money TO the state.
-

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):I strongly disagree.
-
Use of tax monnies on busses/subways is a collosal waste for the tax payer

-
you can DISagree as strongly as you want. You in this may find majorities in the USA, but not in the world. People understand that decent public transport not only is good for the environment and positive for the development of the cities and to solve the traffic problems but also a social way to help young and elderly and poor people.
-

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):If private companies want to run busses, shared ride vans, or taxis etc.. that is great

-
Taxis are for exceptional requirements but not for normal daily transportation, and why should companies run buses at acceptable tariffs with low profits ? If you run a bus at highly profitable tariffs, it is of zero-value for the community.
-

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):I happily pay for those on a monthly basis via fees and are provided by private companies not the government either.

-
You are free to be happy when paying taxes and fees, the point is that all over the world, fairly often the duties I mentioned ARE carried out by private companies under licence of the public administration. The private companies make their bills to the village, or town or city or Canton or the Union, depending on the service they provide.
-

Quoting Flexo (Reply 13):True, but I'd still like them to go with the cheapest option that does the job for the city and not the "fanciest", hence my question about the tram business case.

-
Trams in the end ARE the cheapest option, not fancy but boring in a way. But clearly THE cheapest and most efficient option available
-

Quoting JRadier (Reply 14):Imagine not having public transport and everyone taking a car

I'm all for cars. - provides much more flexibility then a static bus/train network.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 14):. If those people would drive themselves that would mean at least 15 cars. See the traffic gridlocks appearing? Ever wondered how much that costs?

The billions that go into transit systems can be much better spent on actual road infrastructure then sunk into endless loss making transit systems.

The transit authority here has figured out that dollar for dollar each mile of concrete poured in new or expanded roads is far cheaper over its lifespan then running a transit system over that same mile.
For instance we are constantly having roads expanded from 3 to 4 lanes, freeways from 6 to 8 lanes in each direction etc.. those are all worthwhile projects along with bridges, tunnels, new traffic signal systems etc. And most of these cost are self funded via gasoline taxes from its users, and not a financial burden on others.

And for those that cant afford cars if there are enough of them free enterprise will undoubtably come up with private bus, shared ride van services that can transport these people.

I just see not justification for the need to burden all citizens to subsidize endless loss making transit systems into infinidum.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):For instance we are constantly having roads expanded from 3 to 4 lanes, freeways from 6 to 8 lanes in each direction etc.. those are all worthwhile projects

Well, you do realize that this is simply not an option for cities such as New York City, Chicago and the like, right?
Maybe in the midwest in medium sized cities like Kansas City, Tulsa or St. Louis that might work but not for really large cities.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
The transit authority here has figured out that dollar for dollar each mile of concrete poured in new or expanded roads is far cheaper over its lifespan then running a transit system over that same mile.

the word 'here' is the clue. Not every place on earth is SoCal. In general cities and their surroundings are a lot more compact in Europe changing the whole equation. While I'm for more highway lanes, there is just no space in a lot of places to upgrade the whole infrastructure.

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther

-
If you have space for additional lanes still, well, nice for you. But in older cities there is no space for such expansions.
-

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):The transit authority here has figured out that dollar for dollar each mile of concrete poured in new or expanded roads is far cheaper over its lifespan then running a transit system over that same mile.

-
Not least as they in case of the roads only calculate the construction costs, and so their figuring simply is wrong
-

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):for those that cant afford cars if there are enough of them free enterprise will undoubtably come up with private bus, shared ride van services that can transport these people.